Implications or determining permanent impairment - High Court decision in Fellowes v MRCC

7/31/2019 Implications or determining permanent impairment - High Court decision in Fellowes v MRCC

1/8

AUSTRALIAS SAFEST WORKPLACES

Jur

isdictionalPol

icyAdviceNo

.2010/02

Safety,

Rehabilita

tionandCom

pensationAct1988

Jurisdictional Policy AdviceNo. 2010/02Safety, Rehabilitation and

Compensation Act 1988High Court decision in Fellowes v MRCCimplications or determining permanent impairment

Purpose

1. This advice is being issued to explain the implications of the decision

made by the High Court of Australia in the case ofFellowes v Military

Rehabilitation & Compensation Commission [2009] HCA 39 (Fellowes).Guidance is included for determining authorities to follow when they

determine liability for an injury which results in permanent impairment.

The relevant part of the Safety, Rehabilitation and Compensation Act

1988(the Act) is Part II, Division 4.

2. In particular, this advice informs and reminds determining authorities

that:

the word impairment appearing in sections 24, 25 and 28 of the

Act bears the meaning given by the denition in subsection 4(1)

of the Act. It is dened in terms of the effect on body parts, bodily

systems or functions, not whole person impairment as describedin Comcares approved1Guide to the Assessment of the Degree of

Impairment(Guide).

when they are applying the Guide to assess the degree of

permanent impairment resulting from a compensable injury, they

need to isolate the permanent impairment resulting from that

particular injury and assess only that impairment.

3. Determining authorities are advised to:

apply the above practice to all permanent impairment claims they

determine on and from 23 September 2009. This is the date that theHigh Court handed down its decision. Determinations made before

that date remain valid. However, if a request for reconsideration

of a determination made before 23 September 2009 is received, it

would be reasonable for the determining authority to apply the new

practice.

1

1 Section 28 of the Act requires Comcare to prepare and issue a Guide to the Assessmentof Degree of Permanent Impairment. This Guide sets out methods of assessment ofpermanent impairment and non-economic loss. It is binding on determining authorities andthe Administrative Appeals Tribunal.


2/8

AUSTRALIAS SAFEST WORKPLACES 2

Jurisdic

tionalPolicyAdvic

eNo.

2010/02

Safety,

RehabilitationandCompensationAct1988

HighCourtdecisioninFellowe

svMRCC

implicationsfordeterminingpermanentimpairment

Background

Ms Robyn Fellowes enlisted in the Australian Army in November 1986. In 1986 she

suffered a work-related injury to her left knee, and in 1987 she suffered a work-related

injury to her right knee. Ms Fellowes claimed compensation for her injuries under the

SRC Act (via the Military Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission [MRCC]). The

MRCC determined that Ms Fellowes suffered a degree of permanent impairment

assessed at 10% as a result of the injury to her left knee and paid her compensation

in respect of the permanent impairment. However, although Ms Fellowes suffered a

degree of permanent impairment assessed at 10% resulting from the right knee injury,

the MRCC determined that under the SRC Act and the Guide it was not liable to pay

compensation for that permanent impairment because it had already compensated

Ms Fellowes for a degree of permanent impairment assessed at 10%.2

4. The majority3 of the High Court decided that the degree of permanent impairment that

Ms Fellowes suffered from a subsequent injury to her right knee should be assessedindependently of the compensation she had already received for a permanent impairment

to her left knee. The High Court took this approach despite both of the permanent

impairments resulting from both of the injuries being assessed under the Limb Function

Lower Limb Table 9.5 in Part 2 of the Guide.

5. In making its decision, the High Court relied on and reinforced the judgment in Comcare

v Canute (2006) HCA 47 (Canute). The judgment made in this case decided that under

subsection 24(5) of the Act there should be a separate assessment of the degree of

permanent impairment resulting from each separate injury suffered by an employee. This

includes sequela injuries (injuries which arise from, occur subsequent to, or are caused by

the initial injury or associated treatment).

6. Ms Fellowes sustained two separate work related injuries that led to two separate losses

of the use of, or damage to, two distinct parts of her body (left and right knees). The High

Court decided that Ms Fellowes was entitled to permanent impairment compensation for

her right knee injury as it met the criterion for 10 per cent degree of impairment under

Table 9.5 (Part 2) of the Guide: can rise to standing position and walk but has difculty with

grades and steps4. This was irrespective of the permanent impairment assessment already

awarded in relation to her left knee injury, which met the same 10 per cent criterion under

the same Table in the Guide.

2 High Court of Australia Media Release.

3 The majority judgement was delivered by Hayne, Heydon, Crennan and Bell JJ. Keifel J did not agree with theirreasons.

4 Table 9.5 description of level of impairment in Part 2 (page 205) of the Guide.


3/8


Jurisdic

tionalPolicyAdvic

eNo.

2010/02

Safety,



svMRCC


7. Prior to this decision by the High Court, determining authorities had considered that

subsequent injuries to a lower limb, or limbs, which did not result in an increase to the

degree of permanent impairment to the lower limb function under Table 9.5 in Part 2

of the Guide or to the lower extremity under Table 9.7 in Part 1 of the Guide could not

be compensated. This approach was consistent with the Full Federal Court decision in

Comcare v Van Grinsven (Van Grinsven). However, in the case ofFellowes, the High Court

overruled the decision made in Van Grinsven on the basis it was incompatible with Canuteand therefore wrongly decided.

Note:

Part 2 of the Guide deals with the assessment of defence-related claims for

permanent impairment made under the Act by members of the Defence Force in

relation to injuries sustained due to service rendered before 1 July 2004. The Military

Rehabilitation and Compensation Commission (MRCC) is the determining authority

under the Act.

Part 1 of the Guide deals with the assessment of permanent impairment claims made

under the Act by employees of premium paying agencies, the ACT Government

and licensees5. Comcare is the determining authority under the Act for premium

paying agencies and the ACT Government. Licensees or their claims agent are the

determining authority for employers who have been granted a licence under the Act.

Discussion

8. Part 1 of Comcares Guide is based on the American Medical Association Guides to the

Evaluation of Permanent Impairmentfth edition (AMA 5). Part 2 of Comcares Guide

is based on the American Medical Association Guides to the Evaluation of PermanentImpairmentsecond edition (AMA 2). The AMA Guides method of assessment applies a

whole person impairment concept. This means that:

most tables provide impairment ratings expressed as a percentage of whole person

impairment

a combined values chart enables the assessor to account for the effects of multiple

impairments, with a summary value that can not exceed 100 per cent of the whole

person.6

9. The stated policy intent7 of permanent impairment compensation under section 24 of the

Act was to apply a whole person approach to the assessment.

5 Employers who have been granted a licence to self-insure under the Act.

6 AMA5, page 9 (para 1.3 and 1.4).

7 In the Second Reading Speech introducing the Bill for the 1988 Act, the Minister said:

Under the existing Act (1971), lump sum payments are made on the basis of a table of maims, with the level ofpayment being determined having regard to the loss, or loss of the efcient use, of various parts of the body.That approach has been abandoned and the level of payments in future will be determined using a wholeperson approach. . .


4/8


Jurisdic

tionalPolicyAdvic

eNo.

2010/02

Safety,



svMRCC


10. The decision made by the High Court in Canute8 cast doubt on whether the whole

person approach taken by the Guide was supported by the actual wording of the Act.

The Act provides the authority for and boundaries of the Guide. The High Court held

that the terms of subsection 24(5) required attention to the assessment of the degree of

permanent impairment resulting from an injury. Therefore, each separate injury suffered by

an employee (including sequela injuries) that results in a permanent impairment should be

assessed independently.

11. The effect of the Canute decision is that a sequela injury, that satises the denition of

injury in section 5A of the Act, is treated separately and therefore the person is able to

claim for any separate permanent impairment that results from the injury.

12. In the Fellowes decision, the High Court reiterated and expanded on the nding in

Canute. They made it clear that where an employee has two injuries resulting in separate

impairments to separate body parts, that are assessable under the same Table in the

Guide, the impairments must be assessed separately. They stated that the Guide does not

require a single rating to be given where two injuries yield the same degree of impairment

to two separate parts of the body. The Fellowes decision restated that the whole person

concept described in the Guide could not be applied in the event that each of a persons

compensable injuries results in impairment.

13. Further to this, impairment bears the meaning given by the denition in subsection 4(1)

of the Act. Therefore, impairment must be identied by the effect of the injury on the

employees loss, the loss of the use, or the damage or malfunction of any part of their

body, bodily system or function.

14. The following policy advice applies to all claims involving assessment of a degree of

permanent impairment.

Policy guidelines

15. The Fellowes decision applies to all permanent impairment determinations dated on or

after 23 September 2009. This was the date the High Court handed down its decision.

The important date is the date the determination is issued, not when the permanent

impairment claim was made. Decisions on claims issued since 23 September 2009 should

be consistent with the terms of this advice.

Determining authorities should take the following steps when deciding whether an

employee is entitled to compensation for a permanent impairment that results from a

compensable injury.

8 The Court said:

it is important to remember that recourse to the criteria and methodologies set out in the Guide is onlynecessary once the key statutory criterion of the occurrence of an injury (which resulted in permanentimpairment) has been fullled. The Guide is to be approached through the prism of each injury

the Act assumes that more than one injury may occur. Therefore it is not correct to say that s24(5) importsa whole person approach to the determination of the degree of permanent impairment. That ignores thecentrality of an injury to the scheme upon which the Comcare liability to compensate depends.


5/8


Jurisdic

tionalPolicyAdvic

eNo.

2010/02

Safety,



svMRCC


16. Step 1Ensure the ollowing initial threshold requirements are satisfed

i) Liability for an injury is accepted

Claims for permanent impairment under section 24 or section 25 of the Act can only be

determined where, in accordance with section 14 of the Act, liability has been accepted for

an injury which includes a disease, or an aggravation of either.

If liability for the claimed injury has not been accepted under section 14 of the SRC Act

then the determining authority should:

make a determination under that section or assist the employee to submit a claim so

that a determination can be made

consider whether the injury is described differently to any previously accepted claim

that the employee has, or whether it is essentially the same injury.9

ii) The injury meets the denitions of impairment and permanent

Claims for permanent impairment must:

result from the particular compensable injury. Any impairment that results from a

different injury or non-compensable condition must be isolated (if possible)10

meet the meanings of:

o impairmentthe loss, the loss of use, or the damage or malfunction of:

any part of the body

any bodily system or function

any part of a bodily system or function.

o permanentlikely to continue indenitely.

These denitions of impairment and permanent can be found in subsection 4(1) of theAct. Subsection 24(2) lists the factors that a determining authority must have regard to in

determining whether an impairment has become permanent. The factors are:

the duration of the impairment

the likelihood of improvement in the employees condition

whether the employee has undertaken all reasonable rehabilitative treatment for the

impairment

any other relevant matters.

If a claim does not comply with the Acts interpretation of impairment and permanent, it

can not be accepted. A claimed permanent impairment can also not be accepted if it does

not result from the particular compensable injury.

If a permanent impairment does result from a compensable injury, proceed to Step 2.

9 See Abrahams v Comcare (2006) 93 ALD 147.

10 See subsections 24(1) and 24(5) of the SRC Act in the Full Federal Court decision in Comcare v Amorebieta [1996]FCA 1438 and Federal Court decisions in Martin v Australian Postal Corporation [1999] FCA 655 and Jordan vAustralian Postal Corporation [2007] FCA 2028.


6/8


Jurisdic

tionalPolicyAdvic

eNo.

2010/02

Safety,



svMRCC


17. Step 2Assess the degree o permanent impairment

The degree of an employees permanent impairment must be assessed using Comcares

Guide.

Separate injuries resulting in separate impairments

If an employee suffers two or more compensable injuries that result in any permanent

impairment or impairments, the determining authority must make separate assessments of

the degree of permanent impairment resulting from each of the compensable injuries. This

is irrespective of whether the same table and criteria in the Guide apply to impairments

resulting from the different injuries, as in Fellowes.

Liability to pay compensation will only arise if the degree of permanent impairment

resulting from each compensable injury achieves the required 10 per cent threshold. The

only exception to this is hearing loss, or the loss of a nger, toe, or the sense of taste or

smell as mentioned in subsections 24(7A) and 24(8).

Consistent with Canute and Fellowes, above percentage threshold impairments resulting

from separate injuries are added. Any instructions in the Guide to combine or disregardrather than add these values must now be ignored.

Multiple impairments resulting from one injury

If an employee suffers one compensable injury that results in multiple permanent

impairments to different parts of their body, bodily systems or functions, irrelevant of

whether those assessed impairments are above or below the percentage threshold,

they must be combined. Combine them using the instructions in the Guide and its

Combined Values Chart in Appendix 1. The injured employee would be eligible to receive

compensation if the combined degree of their permanent impairment value is at least 10

per cent.

18. Step 3Consider any pre-existing permanent impairment

If an employees relevant body part or system was already affected by a permanent

impairment (from any condition), and it can be assessed using the Guide, it should be

isolated from the compensable injury.11

This means that the degree of permanent impairment arising from the compensable

injury in question has to be adjusted to take into account any pre-existing permanent

impairment. It should be noted that this approach is not inconsistent with Fellowes. In

Fellowes, when Ms. Fellowes suffered a compensable injury to her right knee, her right

knee was not affected by any pre-existing permanent impairment.

11 See subsections 24(1) and 24(5) of the Act in the Full Federal Court decision in Comcare v Amorebieta [1996] FCA1438 and Federal Court decisions in Martin v Australian Postal Corporation [1999] FCA 655 and Jordan v AustralianPostal Corporation [2007] FCA 2028.


7/8


Jurisdic

tionalPolicyAdvic

eNo.

2010/02

Safety,



svMRCC


19. Step 4Consider non-economic loss (NEL)

An injured employee is entitled to receive a separate payment under section 27 of the Act

for each accepted injury that results in permanent impairment compensation under section

24 of the Act.

Section 27 of the Act provides where there is liability to pay compensation for a permanent

impairment, additional compensation for NEL is payable. NEL deals with the effects ofthe impairment on the employees life or lifestyle. Lifestyle effects are a measure of an

individuals mobility, enjoyment of, and participation in:

social relationships

recreation

leisure activities.

Where an employee has already received NEL compensation the determining authority will

need medical evidence to be satised that the employee is not being compensated twice

for the same effects on their lifestyle (part B of the NEL formula).

Where an interim payment for permanent impairment has been determined under section

25 of the Act, NEL compensation is not payable until the nal permanent impairment

compensation is determined.

Applying Fellowes to permanent impairment claims thathave been determined

Reconsideration of own motion

20. A determining authority has power under subsection 62(2) of the Act to reconsiderdecisions on its own motion. However, there is no requirement to do so for decisions

issued before 23 September 2009. Decisions made before this date are valid, as section 24

was applied in accordance with the judicial interpretation current at that time.

Requests for reconsideration

21. The determining authority or Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) must apply the Act as

interpreted by the High Court in Fellowes if either of the following situations occur:

a determining authority receives a request for reconsideration of a decision issued

before 23 September 2009

a reconsideration decision becomes the subject of an application for review bythe AAT.


8/8


Jurisdic

tionalPolicyAdvic

eNo.

2010/02

Safety,



svMRCC


Out of time requests for reconsideration

22. Out of time requests for reconsideration are those made more than 30 days after the

notice is given that a determination for permanent impairment liability is issued. If an out

of time request for reconsideration is made, it is at the determining authoritys discretion

to extend the time.

It is reasonable for determining authorities to extend the time if the original determinationrelied on Van Grinsven. It is also reasonable to extend the time if the request for

reconsideration involves an assessment of the degree of permanent impairment where

the principles in Fellowes apply. If a determining authority does not extend the time in

these circumstances, it could result in the employee making an application to the AAT for a

review of the decision12.

23. Alternatively, determining authorities can conduct a new assessment of the degree of

permanent impairment. Determining authorities are not, however, able to reconsider

decisions or undertake new assessments on decisions that have been made by the AAT or

the Federal Court.

Recalculating permanent impairment entitlementand interest

24. If the determining authority accepts an out of time request for reconsideration it may

determine that the employee is entitled to further permanent impairment compensation.

In this case, the statutory rate at the time of the reconsideration determination will apply

for the purposes of calculating the amount of further compensation payable. The rate that

applied when the original determination was made does not apply.

25. No interest is payable in respect of reconsideration or AAT review under subsection 26(4).

Policy review

26. Comcare is conducting a policy review of the Act and the Guide to ensure it delivers fair

and equitable compensation for permanent impairment and non-economic loss.

More information

27. For more information about this advice email Comcares SRC Policy Section [email protected] or call 1300 366 979.

General Manager

Claims Services Branch

12 March 2010

12 Employees are able to make an application to the AAT under section 64 of the Act.

Implications or determining permanent impairment - High Court decision in Fellowes v MRCC

Documents

Transcript of Implications or determining permanent impairment - High Court decision in Fellowes v MRCC